Refraining from joining exporters’ June 13 submission to the Court of International Trade (see 2406140059), a plaintiff-intervenor importer filed its own motion for judgment making similar arguments against Commerce’s finding that Thai solar panel exporters had circumvented an antidumping duty order on solar panels from China (Canadian Solar International Limited v. U.S., CIT # 23-00222).

The U.S. on July 1 urged the Court of International Trade to dismiss customs broker Seko Customs Brokerage's suit contesting CBP's suspension of the company from participation in the Entry Type 86 pilot and Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program. The government said Seko's claims aren't ripe for judicial review, are moot and are premature (Seko Customs Brokerage v. U.S., CIT # 24-00097).

The Supreme Court of the U.S. on June 28 overturned a hallmark of administrative law that had stood for four decades: the court's principle of deferring to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

In Court of International Trade oral arguments June 25, a judge questioned both parties as to the reason that the Commerce Department made an allegedly ex parte visit to a domestic competitor while it was in the process of reaching a scope ruling on an importer’s ceramic tile (see 2402010046) (Elysium Tiles v. U.S., CIT # 23-00041).

The Commerce Department on June 26 called an importer’s claim that it could have double-counted industry support for an antidumping investigation “misplaced,” saying that double-counting wasn’t possible normally under the department's calculation method and that there was no evidence U.S. producers had “literally counted each ton of pipe they produced twice” (Tenaris Bay City v. U.S., CIT # 22-00343).

The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's decision to pick a secondary mandatory respondent in an antidumping review despite temporal limits on the selection process. However, Judge Mark Barnett sent back the agency's methodology for picking the respondent due to its failure to explain its removal of Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. from the list of eligible exporters.

The Commerce Department can't extend an antidumping and countervailing duty circumvention finding based on adverse facts available for one mandatory respondent on a "country-wide basis," exporter Trina Solar Co. argued June 25. Filing a motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, Trina said Commerce made "no company-specific findings" on whether all the cooperative companies were circumventing the AD/CVD orders on Chinese solar cells and, as a matter of law, can't impose the circumvention finding on those companies (Trina Solar (Vietnam) Science & Technology Co. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00228).

The U.S. in a June 25 brief defended the Commerce Department's finding that 16 of exporter Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co.'s input suppliers are government authorities based on adverse facts available, which was used due to the Chinese government's failure to provide adequate information (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).

Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

CBP announced a new Enforce and Protect Act investigation, saying it has reasonable suspicion that Global Natural Ingredients evaded the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on xanthan gum from China and it has enacted interim measures against the importer.